LA Times editor resigns after owner blocks presidential endorsement

In an exclusive conversation with the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), Mariel Garza expressed her strong stance following billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong’s controversial decision to prevent the Los Angeles Times’ editorial board from endorsing Kamala Harris for president. Garza, a seasoned journalist with nearly a decade on the Times’ editorial board, resigned in protest after Soon-Shiong’s directive. “In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up,” Garza affirmed.

Soon-Shiong, owner of the Los Angeles Times since 2018, revealed on social media that the editorial board had opted against a typical presidential endorsement. Instead, he suggested providing a “factual analysis of all the POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies” of each candidate, allowing readers to form their own conclusions. He expressed disappointment that the board chose silence over this plan, noting, “I accepted their decision” and concluded with a call to action: “Please #vote.”

The editorial decision has drawn criticism from the Los Angeles Times Guild, which expressed concern that Soon-Shiong was unfairly placing blame on editorial board members for his own choice not to endorse. A spokesperson for the Times did not respond immediately for a request for comment.

Garza detailed to CJR that the editorial board was in the process of preparing to endorse Harris and had even outlined their endorsement when Terry Tang, the executive editor, informed her on October 11 that Soon-Shiong had blocked any endorsement. Initially, Garza attempted to downplay the significance of the decision, reasoning that presidential endorsements may not carry much weight, especially in California. “I told myself that California was not ever going to vote for Trump; that no one would even notice,” she reflected in her resignation letter.

However, as the news of the non-endorsement circulated, her perspective shifted dramatically. The Trump campaign quickly seized the opportunity, stating that even Harris’s fellow Californians believed she wasn’t “up for the job.” Garza articulated her concerns about the decision’s implications, saying, “It’s perplexing to readers, and possibly suspicious, that we didn’t endorse [Harris] this time.” She lamented that the Times’ refusal to endorse a candidate they previously supported undermined their credibility and could be perceived as hypocritical.

In light of the uproar, reports from Semafor indicated that the Los Angeles Times might already be facing subscriber fallout due to its non-endorsement, with cancelations reportedly doubling the day after the news broke. “Of course it matters that the largest newspaper in the state—and one of the largest in the nation—declined to endorse in a race this important,” Garza concluded.